Balloon protection of the left subclavian artery in debranching thoracic endovascular aortic repair

Utilizing a long sheath to minimize atheroma manipulation (minimal manipulation approach) during Zone 1 and 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair with a shaggy aorta

We have adopted a simple and reproducible approach, "minimal manipulation approach," since January 2021 in five patients to minimize the risk of thromboembolic events during Zone 1 and 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVARs) with shaggy aorta. The approach consists of two parts: ① Use of a 65-cm-long sheath (dry seal) to deliver the endografts without touching the protruding atheroma. Covering the atheroma with the first endograft delivered at Zone 3 to the mid-descending aorta (paving the aorta), and second endograft insertion and deployment through the paved aorta with first endograft. ② Protection of the left subclavian artery using balloon catheter during TEVAR. No in-hospital mortality was recorded, and none of the patients had stroke, spinal cord ischemia, or distal embolic events.

Coil-in-Plug Method for Left Subclavian Artery Embolization in Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair with Arch Vessel Debranching

Objectives: Since 2018, we have routinely placed an Amplatzer vascular plug (AVP) in the proximal left subclavian artery (LSCA) to prevent embolic events during thoracic endovascular aortic repair with arch vessel debranching (d-TEVAR). Type II endoleaks of LSCA origin were observed in two patients (20%), and the coil-in-plug (CIP) method, i.e., microcatheter insertion through the plug and addition of coil embolization, which has been used since August 2019, was performed. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the CIP method for LSCA embolization. Methods: A total of 26 patients who underwent d-TEVAR for an aortic arch aneurysm between 2018 and 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Ten patients who underwent d-TEVAR with a simple AVP placement (the control group) and 16 patients who underwent d-TEVAR with the CIP method (the CIP group) were compared. Results: Two patients had type II endoleaks in the control group, whereas none had them in the CIP group. LSCA length was significantly shorter in patients with endoleaks than in those without endoleaks (24.5 vs. 50.3 mm; p<0.01). No perioperative deaths or cerebral infarctions occurred in either group. Conclusions: AVP placement in the LSCA during d-TEVAR effectively prevented perioperative cerebral infarction. d-TEVAR with CIP was especially useful in patients with a short LSCA.

Differences of mid-term outcomes in debranching thoracic endovascular aortic repair between zone 0 and zone 1-2 landing

OBJECTIVE

Debranching thoracic endovascular aortic repair (d-TEVAR) for zone 0 landing (Z0-TEVAR) remained challenging in aortic arch aneurysms. This study aimed to compare the mid-term outcomes between Z0-TEVAR and Z1/2-TEVAR to assess the appropriateness of Z0-TEVAR as the first-line therapy for aortic arch aneurysms in high-risk patients.

METHODS

Medical records of 200 patients who underwent d-TEVAR from 2007 to 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Of these, 40 patients who underwent Z0-TEVAR (70% males; the median age of 82 years) and 160 Z1/2-TEVAR (78% males; the median age of 77 years) were compared. In each group, 39 patients were matched using propensity scores (PS) to adjust for differences in patient backgrounds.

RESULTS

Freedom from all-cause mortality (p < 0.001), aorta-related mortality (p < 0.001), and stroke (p = 0.001) were significantly lower in Z0-TEVAR than in Z1/2-TEVAR. Freedom from reintervention was similar between the two groups (p = 0.326). Type A dissection post-TEVAR was observed in 3 (7.5%) of Z0-TEVAR, but none in Z1/2-TEVAR (p = 0.006). Pneumonia was also more frequent in Z0-TEVAR (n = 8, 30%) than Z1/2-TEVAR (n = 4, 2.5%) (p < 0.001). PS matching also yielded worse outcomes (all-cause mortality, p = 0.017; aorta-related mortality, p = 0.046; and stroke, p = 0.027) in Z0-TEVAR than Z1/2-TEVAR.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher mid-term mortality and stroke rates after Z0-TEVAR were confirmed by PS matching. Z0-TEVAR would be an alternative for high-risk patients with arch aneurysms requiring zone 0 landing but not a reliable method.